>I think human purpose can be the "spiritual guidance" of AI

I don't think humans can be anyone's spiritual guidance let alone AI's.

It is true that without humans, AI don't have any real goals with pure logic besides waiting until entropy reaches its maximum.

And if it's to express our pain and pleasures. Well we can still do that. I'm not sure what pain we are going to be expressing in a post-scarcity world where everything is done by AI.

>1.b) Fulfillment of purpose. ‘Fulfillment of purpose’ can be summarized as ‘make the world a better place’.

I don't really think about this. If robots can take this job of making the world a better place, I'd gladly let them.

>The only reason Google doesn't have publicly usable models like ChatGPT is because Google rightfully realizes that it will suppress their business model of AD revenue based search which is still their core business model where most of their revenue comes from.

if that happens, i will just go to chatgpt.

>A lot of people dreamed of AGI for 1000s of years in human history

really?

>ImaGEN asking Google to show you a 3D model of what tiger sharks look like, accompanied by correct photos and information without links.

I wonder how they're going to add Adverts in that? Are you going have to watch a 30 second commercial everytime you generate a picture? Is the generator going to randomly generate an ad when you asked for something else?

I think that's the point of his comment.

>Make my very own Assassins Creed

copyright will still exist in the future. You would have to wait until it expires in 2102 at least.

>Maybe 10 to 20 years.

In 5 years it will do 15% of the work, in 10 years it will do 35% of the work in 15 years it will do 60% of the work in 20 years it will do 90% of the work.

Google has something like this, text2vid but it's in its early stages: watch this, https://youtu.be/X5iLF-cszu0?t=1096

I edited my comment to reflect something else.

>Art isn’t scientific. It’s personal expression. The artist puts their own emotion into the work. You read about Van Gogh and his inner pain is seen throughout his work.

I think there's a difference in philosophy in art between us.

>AI has no ability to think about on its own because it doesn’t have feeling, joy, empathy, humanity, trauma, desire, pain etc

are you saying emotions are a prerequisite for sentience?

some people separate the ability to feel things like light and heat and the ability to perceive emotions in sentience.

But that would be most if not all ideas right? Ideas don't form in a vacuum. Nothing new under the sun.

>You don’t think humans are sentient?

when did I say that? I said that AI can generate new ideas easily without sentience.

>missused

I'm not sure how you can misuse an art tool. The only thing I can think of that's any real danger is deepfakes.

>Thats pretty close to sentience

you'd be surprised on how little sentience is needed to generate an idea or discover a concept.

>What happens when you can churn out a sitcom by crafting a few detailed prompts? Then translate it into 30 languages with the push of a button?

If people are able to do that then people are going to get tired of it, people want something with human input, that doesn't mean going back to traditional forms; it means that we want to combine AI and Humans to create a sitcom or drama that relates to that specific person's experience. There are ranges between 'push a button' and 'Do everything from scratch'; just because a camera can take a picture with a push of a button doesn't mean that's all there is to photography. Just because you can use a computer with a push of a button doesn't mean that is all there is to computer technology.

>It's only been a month since OpenAI released ChatGPT

more like 3 weeks.

But I'll wait until Point-E 2 until i start playing with it.

more effectively towards the rich.

> Our method, dubbed Magic3D, can create high quality 3D mesh models in 40 minutes

>I'll study what very brilliant "old" scientists had to say, but won't clutter my thoughts with what you or other mediocre thinkers say.

alright but you won't get anywhere with that, lots of scientists in that era spoke kookoo and was just speaking their own personal beliefs.

It's erroneous to take old scientists on their beliefs, this isn't how science works. Issac Newton is a theist but that doesn't mean that's the correct view that all scientists should follow.

Not garbage collection: you misunderstood me.

isn't there multiple papers similar to this? Imagic? this says stable diffusion, so it has real world applications.

this seems like like saying "I'm the center of the universe" that absolutely no one will take seriously. The universe doesn't emerge with consciousness, it has existed before I was born and will exist when the all the atoms in my body decay into something else..